WWW version of the guidelines are available at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/06/wai-ua-telecon-19990616.html
Attendance
Chair: Jon Gunderson
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Present: Marja Koivunen
Charles McCathieNevile
Rich Schwardtfeger
Glen Gordon
Regrets:Harvey Bingham
Mark Novak
Jim Allan
Completed Action Items
IJ: Implement proposal to simplify the guidelines, separate techniques from
checkpoints, make checkpoints more global, move technichy checkpoints to
technique document. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990611/
IJ: Include specific navigation checkpoints for the following elements:
forms, form controls, tables, in next draft
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990611/
IJ: Include checkpoint: Scripting events should be part of navigating to
active content checkpoint http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990611/
IJ: Include checkpoint: Allow user to configure elements that are part of
active contents http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990611/
IJ: Include checkpoint: Allow user to navigate to elements that can respond
to eventshttp://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990611/
IJ: Poste message to begin discussiion of fotification of scripting events.
Two main issues to be discussed: 1) What requirements on browser for
notification of changes to AT? 2) What required of AT to make these changes
known? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0195.html
JG:: Send URL of new charter to group.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0193.html
Continued Action Items
IJ: Write DJW about requirements T&S/WAI. Wrote thrice, no reply. Status:
Will follow up.
IJ: Include checkpoint: Allow user to simulate event activator that an
element could respond to
IJ: Include checkpoint: Orient user to events an element can respond to
IJ: Include checkpoint:: Add checkpoint: turn on/off access key at priority
2 level
CMN: Write techniques for 7.2.2 and 7.2.6 CMN (Navigaton of the document
tree) deferred until publication of Note by Rich and Mark. Status: Will
wait for new draft (expanded to include additional checkpoints in guideline
7 of 11 June WD).
JG: Techniques for 7.2.2. Status: In progress.
New Action Items
IJ: Propose a keyboard implementation model for the guidelines and
techniques document to highlight the importance of keyboard support in user
agents
IJ: Propose a guideline on consistancy of user interface featues (notably
keyboard) between versions of a user agent
IJ: Rewrite and propose checkpoints in guidelines 7 based on today's
discussion
Minutes
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0200.htmlhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0202.html
1) Review of Action items
CMN: Write techniques for 7.2.2 and 7.2.6 CMN deferred until publication of
Note by Rich and Mark. Status: Will wait for new draft. Status: Continued
JG: Techniques for 7.2.2. Status: In progress. Status: Continued
IJ: Implement proposal to simplify the guidelines, separate techniques from
checkpoints, make checkpoints more global, move technichy checkpoints to
technique document. Status: Done in 11 June draft.
IJ: Include specific navigation checkpoints for the following elements:
forms, form controls, tables, in next draft. Status: Done in 11 June draft.
IJ: Include checkpoint: Scripting events should be part of navigating to
active content checkpoint Status: Done in 11 June draft.
IJ: Include checkpoint: Allow user to configure elements that are part of
active contents Status: Done in 11 June draft.
IJ: Include checkpoint: Allow user to simulate event activator that an
element could respond to Status: Not done.
IJ: Include checkpoint: Orient user to events an element can respond to
Status: Not done.
IJ: Include checkpoint: Allow user to navigate to elements that can respond
to events Status: Done in 11 June draft.
IJ: Include checkpoint:: Add checkpoint: turn on/off access key at priority
2 level Status: Not done.
IJ: Poste message to begin discussiion of fotification of scripting events.
Two main issues to be discussed: 1) What requirements on browser for
notification of changes to AT? 2) What required of AT to make these changes
known? Status: Done
JG:: Send URL of new charter to group. Status: Done
2) Review of charter [1] [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/wai-ua-charter.html
CMN, IJ, JG, RS: Charter looks ok.
/* Some discussion of dependencies on other WGs*/
3) Discussion of new draft.
a) Three levels of conformance. Consensus: Good thing.
b) IJ: Should keyboard be brought out as its own guideline?
RS: Yes. Have other ones cross-reference it.
IJ: The slice "keyboard access" exists in techniques doc.
CMN: I prefer in techniques doc too.
GG: I agree with Rich. So many people go out of the way to avoid keyboard
input, the more places people have it under their noses, the better.
ACTION: Ian: Create a keyboard guideline for the next draft to try it out.
Proposed (Rich) additional checkpoints: a) Be consistent with keyboard
bindings between releases of software.
IJ: Should this be more general? Consistency across versions?
JG: Two-edged sword - keep the good stuff, drop the bad stuff.
CMN: I think good in general for consistency, sometimes changes need to be
made.
IJ: Avoid arbitrary changes.
GG: If you make changes, provide a compatibility mode.
RS: Tell people to take care when changing default bindings.
CMN: Call this out in "observe system conventions"
RS: Yes, and cross reference this from keyboard guideline.
Proposed: General consistency guideline (Priority 2).
a) Don't make arbitrary changes.
b) Provide compatibility mode.
c) Keyboard defaults consistent.
d) Control labeling
e) Menu layout
CMN: I think this is part of the existing guideline 11. Calling out
keyboard access is more important.
ACTION: Ian propose to two options to list
a) Propose Guideline
b) Propose checkpoint for keyboard layout consistency only and editorial
decision where it goes.
c) Navigation Guideline
/* Ian explains navigation as technique for accessing information */
7.2 (restore point of regard).
RS: Restore focus as well.
RS: Do people always want to return to where they were?
IJ: Do you return to the anchor? What if you scroll down two pages?
IJ: If you have no focus, where do you return to?
RS: I think return to point of focus.
CMN: Lynx:
a) If something focused, return to it.
b) If not, take you back to your previous "screenfull"
RS: Ok with current wording of 7.2
7.3 (table cell info)
GG: What must desktop browsers do to work with this?
JG: See checkpoint 11.4
Proposal: Combine 7.4 and 7.5. "Allow the user to navigate among active
elements.
Proposal: Allow the user to navigate among all elements.
CMN: Isn't this 7.8 (doc tree) or part of it? I think 7.8 is more
important. (CMN's action item in fact is to write about 7.8)
RESOLVED:
Need to have (at least one) checkpoint(s) about navigating active elements.
Merge 7.4 and 7.5 into one checkpoint, talk about details in techniques.
Search text on all elements is a minimum requirement.
IJ: Rendered content only or all?
Consensus: Search on rendering structure is minimum requirement.
IJ: What about attribute names and/or values?
CMN: cool, but no higher than P3. Very useful when attribute specifies
alternative content.
MK: May be cases when author gives semantics to key words.
OPEN:
No consensus about scope of searching (e.g., attribute values for alt text)
No consensus about navigating "all elements".
ACTION: Ian will propose some changes to this section.
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820
Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongundhttp://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess